413
Larian's head writer has a simple answer for how AI-generated text helps development: 'It doesn't,' thanks to its best output being 'a 3/10 at best' worse than his worst drafts (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
83 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

This is based on the assumption that the AI output is any good, but the actual game devs and writers are saying otherwise.

If the game is too big for writers to finish on their own, they're not going to have time to read and fix everything wrong with the AI output either. This is how you get an empty, soulless game, not Balders Gate 3.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    It's assuming the ai output isn't very good. It assumes it can create a framework that necessarily still needs the actual writers, but now they don't have to come up with 100% of the framework, but instead work on the actual content only. Storyboarding and frameworking is a hodgepodge of nonsense anyway with humans. The goal is to achieve non-linear scaling, not replace quality writers or have the final product Ai written.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    This sounds like it takes away a huge amount of creative freedom from the writers if the AI is specifying the framework. It'd be like letting the AI write the plot, but then having real writers fill in details along the way, which sounds like a good way to have the story go nowhere interesting.

    I'm not a writer, but if I was to apply this strategy to programming, which I am familiar with, it'd be like letting the AI decide what all the features are, and then I'd have to go and build them. Considering more than half my job is stuff other than actually writing code, this seems overly reductive, and underestimates how much human experience matters in deciding a framework and direction.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    Even in programming there are common feature frameworks. Having a system enumerate them based on a unified design vision from a single source architect rather than 50 different design ideas duct taped together could help a lot. I've seen some horrendous systems where you can tell a bunch of totally separate visions were frankenstein'd together, and the same happens in games where you can tell different groups wrote different sections.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    I’ve seen some horrendous systems where you can tell a bunch of totally separate visions were frankenstein’d together

    My experience has been that using AI only accelerates this process, because the AI has no concept of what good architecture is or how to reduce entropy. Unless you can one-shot the entire architecture, it's going to immediately go off the rails. And if the architecture was that simple to begin with, there really wasn't much value in the AI in the first place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent